|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NC: I own guns, but I also have a conscience. Does the NRA?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
These are automatic rifles that fire dozens of rounds before requiring reloading. How long will the NRA shirk its responsibility to support legislation that sets reasonable limits on (A) who can legally own firearms and (B) which firearms pose too great a risk of harming or killing Americans and, therefore, must be controlled or banned for the safety of all? What could possibly motivate that influential organization to continue with its present philosophy and lobbying to Congress? Surely people don’t have to be told the answer to that question! It is money.
I have personally chosen not to join the NRA because of their rigid stance that perpetuates this needless killing. |
Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(11/25/2017)
|
Their "rigid stance" there, dingbat, is to protect the country from control freak loony leftwing libtards who are constantly trying to chip away at the 2A by reducing the types of guns we can own. Your ignorance is displayed by your claim about automatic rifles. Those guns were tightly restricted in 1933 and you CANNOT buy them at Wal-Mart. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/25/2017)
|
Read U.S. v. Miller (1939), then siddown and shaddup. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|